People v. Taylor

2026 IL App (4th) 250295 FILED July 10, 2026 NO. 4-25-0295 Carla Bender 4th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Winnebago County BRANDON TAYLOR, ) Defendant-Appellant. ) No. 21CF961 ) ) Honorable ) Debra D. Schafer, Judge Presiding. PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Zenoff and DeArmond concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 In May 2021, defendant, Brandon Taylor, was charged with first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) (West 2020)). The charges generally alleged that on October 8, 2020, defendant, Dory Delmar Love, Nakeithian Cortez Johnson, and Thomas Hawkins shot and killed Tammy Gonzalez during the commission of a forcible felony—namely, home invasion (id. § 19- 6(a)). The charges further alleged defendant was armed with a firearm during these crimes. ¶2 In February 2023, the trial court conducted defendant’s jury trial, and the jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder. The court later sentenced defendant to 57 years in prison. ¶3 Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) the trial testimony by the State’s DNA expert lacked a proper foundation for her conclusion that one of the two male DNA profiles found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene matched defendant’s DNA profile, (2) the State’s evidence was not sufficient to prove defendant guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) defendant’s 57-year sentence was excessive. ¶4 We disagree with all of defendant’s claims and affirm. ¶5 I. BACKGROUND ¶6 A. The Charges ¶7 In May 2021, the State initially charged defendant with first degree murder in a criminal complaint (id. § 9-1(a)(1)). In July 2021, a grand jury indicted defendant, along with codefendants Dory Delmar Love and Nakeithian Cortez Johnson, on the charge of first degree murder. The charges generally alleged that on October 8, 2020, defendant, his codefendants, and Thomas Hawkins shot and killed Tammy Gonzalez during the commission of a forcible felony— namely, home invasion (id. § 19-6(a)). The indictment further alleged defendant was armed with a firearm during the commission of the home invasion. ¶8 B. The Jury Trial ¶9 In February 2023, the trial court conducted defendant’s jury trial, and the State presented the following evidence. ¶ 10 1. Ashley McCammond ¶ 11 Ashley McCammond testified that on October 8, 2020, she resided with her boyfriend, Adan Ibarra, in their home at 1307 15th Avenue, in Rockford, Illinois. During the early morning hours of October 8, 2020, McCammond and Ibarra were asleep in their bedroom when three men wearing ski masks with eye and mouth cutouts forced entry into their home. Upon entering McCammond’s bedroom, the intruders announced they were police officers, and then one intruder immediately struck McCammond in the face with a revolver and ordered her to lie flat on the bed. Another intruder struck Ibarra in the back of the head with a handgun. -2- McCammond observed that at least two of the men were armed, specifically noting a revolver and a 9-millimeter handgun. ¶ 12 The intruders then ransacked the house, searching for drugs and money, and used their weapons to strike McCammond and Ibarra. McCammond was struck again on her eyebrow. At some point, one of the intruders poured hot candle wax on McCammond and then struck her on the right side of her face with the candleholder. McCammond was facedown and was hit multiple times. That same intruder shoved an object into Ibarra’s rectum and threatened to rape McCammond if Ibarra did not reveal where the drugs were located. ¶ 13 McCammond testified that one of the intruders asked Ibarra for a cigarette. After Ibarra told the men where the cigarettes were located, the intruder smoked one and then shared it with Ibarra. ¶ 14 The intruders eventually moved McCammond and Ibarra to the living room. They tied up McCammond with an extension cord and ordered her not to look at them. When McCammond called one of the men a derogatory name, the intruders mistakenly believed Ibarra made the comment and repeatedly stomped on his back. ¶ 15 The intruders stole numerous items, including clothing, two televisions, a PlayStation, DVDs, jewelry, McCammond’s purse, and the cremated ashes of her sister and her dog. They also poured bleach on her clothing (ostensibly to destroy any possible DNA evidence). ¶ 16 Because the men failed to find a satisfactory amount of drugs, they held Ibarra at gunpoint and forced him to text his drug supplier to come over. (The trial evidence identified the supplier as Roger Garcia Fiebrantz, Gonzalez’s son.) The intruders also took McCammond’s cell phone, after forcing her to provide the passcode. ¶ 17 After Ibarra contacted Fiebrantz, two of the intruders walked McCammond out to -3- the detached garage, seated her in a chair, and covered her with a sheet. One intruder remained inside the house with Ibarra while he cleaned blood from his face. The two men in the garage eventually exited to the driveway. ¶ 18 McCammond testified that shortly thereafter, she heard a vehicle pull into the driveway, heard “Tammy *** [say] something” (the record is unclear how McCammond knew Gonzalez’s voice), and then heard “tires squeal out backward,” immediately followed by a single gunshot. After the intruders fled the scene, McCammond went back inside, got dressed, and walked to a nearby police station with Ibarra to report the incident. As a result of the attack, McCammond suffered black eyes, a swollen face and nose, and a bruise by her right ear. ¶ 19 Regarding the subsequent investigation, McCammond testified that in February 2021, officers asked her to view photo lineups and she successfully identified Johnson as one of the intruders. She also testified that she had known Love for a few years and had spoken with him shortly before October 8, 2020, when she was driving home from work. During that conversation, she told Love that she lived in a nearby apartment. ¶ 20 2. Roger Garcia Fiebrantz ¶ 21 Roger Garcia Fiebrantz testified he was the son of Gonzalez. Fiebrantz testified he could not remember the events of October 8, 2020, because “it was a traumatizing situation” and he had “been shot in the head” in an unrelated incident. The State asked Fiebrantz a series of questions regarding the incident. Specifically, the State asked if Fiebrantz recalled (1) Ibarra calling him to collect $200, (2) asking his mother to drive him to Ibarra’s house, and (3) a man putting a gun in his face when they pulled into the garage. The State further asked if Fiebrantz recalled his mother trying to save him, the man threatening to shoot, and his mother stating she was hit and could not breathe. Fiebrantz testified he did not recall any of those events. -4- ¶ 22 Because Fiebrantz claimed a complete lack of memory on the witness stand, the State introduced and published his video-recorded statement to the police, which was recorded the morning of the shooting. Fiebrantz acknowledged he was the person in the video but maintained he had no independent recollection of the statements he made. ¶ 23 In the video, Fiebrantz told the police that he went to Ibarra’s house around 4:30 or 5 a.m. Fiebrantz explained that he was at his house and called his mother for a ride. At his request, Gonzalez drove Fiebrantz to Ibarra’s house and pulled into the driveway. ¶ 24 When they arrived, Ibarra came out of the house, approached the car’s window, and handed Fiebrantz $200. Suddenly, a tall, skinny, dark-skinned Black man, wearing a face mask, emerged and approached the passenger seat. The man pointed a gun directly in Fiebrantz’s face, waved the firearm around, and threatened to shoot. In response, Fiebrantz attempted to give the man everything he had on him, including the $200 he had just received. ¶ 25 Fiebrantz stated his mother tried to “save him.” As the man fired his weapon, Gonzalez threw the car in reverse and attempted to drive away. Fiebrantz recalled hearing what he believed were two shots. Gonzalez then told him that she had been hit and could not breathe. Fiebrantz initially told her they needed to go to the hospital, thinking she was still able to drive. However, he quickly realized he had to take over the wheel because she was swerving toward the shoulder of the road. He then drove them to the hospital. ¶ 26 3. Thomas Hawkins ¶ 27 Thomas Hawkins testified that he was currently in federal custody for two charges of robbery and was on federal probation in October 2020, after serving a 136-month prison sentence for a 2008 conviction for interference with commerce by threat of violence. Hawkins acknowledged he faced the possibility of additional penalties on his federal probation due to his -5- involvement in the present case. However, he testified that in April 2021, he entered into a written agreement with both state and federal authorities, under which he received full immunity from prosecution for his role in the October 2020 home invasion and murder in exchange for his truthful testimony. ¶ 28 Regarding the events of October 8, 2020, Hawkins testified that late the night before, he met with (1) Dory Love, (2) a man he knew as Bo Lord, and (3) a man he knew as “Lil B” at the apartment of Love’s girlfriend on 15th Avenue. Hawkins noted that he had known Love his entire life, had known Lord for approximately a month through the mother of Hawkins’s child, and had just met Lil B that night. Hawkins initially believed Lil B’s name was Brandon Lambert, based on information from Love, but he later learned it was Brandon Taylor. At trial, Hawkins identified defendant as the man he knew as Lil B. ¶ 29 Hawkins testified that Love organized a plan to rob a house located a block and a half away because he believed drugs were inside. On October 8, 2020, Hawkins drove his truck to the alley behind the targeted house. Because Love knew the residents and did not want his face seen, he remained inside the truck. Hawkins, Lord, and defendant exited the vehicle, wearing black gloves and ski masks that exposed only their eyes and mouths. Lord was armed with a 9-millimeter Glock 19, and defendant was armed with a 9-millimeter handgun. ¶ 30 Hawkins testified that he and Lord helped defendant enter the house through a side window and then Lord stood on Hawkins’s shoulders to climb inside. Lord and defendant then unlocked the front door to let Hawkins in. Upon entering during the early morning hours, Hawkins heard screaming from a man and a woman in the bedroom. The intruders ordered the couple to stay on the bed. Defendant smacked the man in the head with his gun and poured a liquid over the woman’s face. -6- ¶ 31 The men then ransacked the house looking for drugs and money, ultimately finding approximately 14 grams of cocaine. Hawkins testified that he temporarily held Lord’s handgun while Lord carried stolen items, including televisions, electronics, jewelry, and a pit bull puppy, out to Hawkins’s vehicle. ¶ 32 Because the intruders did not find as much money or drugs as they expected, they moved the couple into the living room and tied them up with an orange extension cord. Hawkins testified that (1) he, Lord, and defendant all threatened to beat the man further if he did not comply with their demands and (2) defendant assaulted the man by inserting an object into his rectum. They demanded the man contact his drug supplier and lure him to the house so they could rob him. The man eventually texted his supplier, who agreed to come over. ¶ 33 While waiting, Lord poured bleach throughout the house in an attempt to destroy DNA evidence. The men then formed an ambush plan. Defendant remained inside the house with the male resident, while Hawkins, Lord, and the female resident went into the detached garage. The plan was for defendant to allow the male resident to walk out to the supplier’s vehicle, at which point Hawkins and Lord would emerge from the garage to commit the robbery. Because he did not have a gun, Hawkins retrieved a green crowbar from his truck and concealed it in his sweater sleeve. ¶ 34 When the supplier’s vehicle arrived, the male resident walked toward the passenger side, prompting Hawkins and Lord to exit the garage. Hawkins approached the driver’s side and attempted to smash the window with the crowbar, but the glass did not break. He then heard Lord tussling with someone on the passenger side. Lord ran to the front of the vehicle and yelled that an occupant had a gun, though Hawkins testified he never saw a firearm. Lord then fired a single shot into the vehicle. The vehicle slowly reversed before going into drive and speeding away. -7- ¶ 35 Hawkins, Lord, and defendant then ran back to Hawkins’s truck and fled. Love drove the vehicle erratically and almost hit a light pole because he had been drinking in the truck during the home invasion. This prompted Hawkins to take over driving. He drove the group to his child’s mother’s house. Later that day, Hawkins saw a news alert on his phone, showing yellow police tape around the targeted house, and he realized someone had been killed. ¶ 36 Hawkins testified that the group subsequently disposed of the stolen items. Love had already taken it upon himself to hide some of the property behind a bus station and nearby factories. However, because Hawkins, Lord, and defendant objected to Love’s being the only one who knew the location of these items, Hawkins, Lord, and defendant retrieved them to dispose of them together. Using bolt cutters, they cut a lock near the Rockford Register Star building and threw the televisions into the Rock River. They dumped the remaining items, including clothing and Lord’s handgun, in a wooded area near “dead man’s curve,” which was located between the west and south sides of Rockford. Hawkins later sold one of the stolen cell phones at an automated kiosk at Walmart. ¶ 37 Regarding the police investigation, Hawkins testified that in February 2021, detectives approached him because they discovered he had sold the stolen phone. Afraid of getting in trouble, Hawkins did not disclose his involvement in the home invasion. Instead, in an attempt to gain favor, he provided Detective Fitzgerald with information regarding an unrelated murder. ¶ 38 In April 2021, after securing his immunity agreement, Hawkins provided a full statement detailing the home invasion. During this interview, the police officers showed Hawkins single photographs of Love and Lord, which he identified, labeled with their names, initialed, and dated. The officers also showed Hawkins a photo lineup containing an individual named Brandon Lambert, but Hawkins did not identify anyone. -8- ¶ 39 Later that month, police officers showed Hawkins a new photo lineup, and Hawkins identified defendant from this lineup and circled his photograph. Hawkins also provided the officers with the location where the group disposed of the evidence near “dead man’s curve,” which he identified on a map. This information led officers to recover all the items dumped there except for Lord’s handgun. ¶ 40 4. Law Enforcement Witnesses ¶ 41 In the early morning of October 8, 2020, Officer DaCoda VanVleet met with McCammond and transported her to the police station. VanVleet observed that McCammond had facial injuries and several white spots on her face and collar, which appeared to be dried candle wax. ¶ 42 Another officer met with Fiebrantz at the hospital and transported him to the police station for questioning. Detective Fitzgerald later interviewed Fiebrantz with Detective Mace at the District 2 police building, and they recorded the interview. ¶ 43 During the crime scene investigation at 1307 15th Avenue, Officer Andrew Thompson recovered a spent 9-millimeter Luger cartridge case outside the residence. Inside the home, officers recovered a smoked cigarette butt from the kitchen, which they submitted for DNA testing. Officers later obtained a buccal swab from defendant to allow the Illinois State Police Forensic Science Laboratory to compare his DNA to DNA found on the cigarette butt. ¶ 44 As the investigation progressed, Fitzgerald developed multiple suspects. In February 2021, Fitzgerald compiled two photo lineups for McCammond to view. McCammond identified Johnson from one of the two photo lineups, circling his photograph and signing and dating the document. ¶ 45 Fitzgerald also spoke with Hawkins once in February 2021 and twice in April 2021. -9- On April 7, 2021, Hawkins provided a recorded statement detailing the incident in the presence of Fitzgerald and attorneys for both Hawkins and the government. During this interview, Fitzgerald showed Hawkins single photographs of Love and Johnson, and Hawkins identified both men, writing their respective street names, “D Love” and “Bo Lord,” on the photos. ¶ 46 Hawkins also provided information regarding the location where the intruders disposed of items from the home invasion. Fitzgerald showed Hawkins a satellite map of the area around Curve Street and South Avon Street on the southwest side of Rockford, and Hawkins pinpointed the exact location on the map. This information led police officers to recover the items from that location, and that map was admitted into evidence. ¶ 47 Also, during the April 7 interview, Hawkins stated that an individual named Brandon participated in the offense, indicating he believed the man’s last name was Lambert. Based on this information, Fitzgerald created a photo lineup containing an individual named Brandon Lambert, but Hawkins did not identify anyone from that group. ¶ 48 Fitzgerald conducted further investigation and met with Hawkins again on April 15, 2021, with a new photo lineup that included defendant. Hawkins identified defendant from this lineup as a participant in the October 2020 home invasion and murder. ¶ 49 The forensic pathologist who conducted an autopsy on Gonzalez testified that she died of a single gunshot wound to the chest. ¶ 50 5. Heather May ¶ 51 Heather May, a forensic scientist in the biology and DNA section of the Illinois State Police Forensic Science Laboratory in Rockford, testified, without objection, as an expert in forensic biology and DNA analysis. She stated her duties included conducting DNA testing on criminal evidence, interpreting results, and issuing reports. May had a bachelor’s degree in - 10 - genetics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a master’s degree in forensic science from the University of Illinois Chicago. She completed specialized training through the Illinois State Police, including practical, written, and oral examinations. ¶ 52 May explained that DNA is unique to every person, except identical siblings, and remains the same throughout a person’s life and across all body tissues. Although red blood cells do not contain DNA, she noted analysts can still generate a DNA profile from blood, using other components like white blood cells. May explained that although extreme exposure to chemicals, such as bleach or ultraviolet light from the sun, can weaken or destroy DNA and make it difficult to detect, such exposure will not alter a DNA profile to look like someone else’s profile. ¶ 53 May outlined her testing process and contamination prevention measures, which included wearing protective gear, cleaning her workspace with bleach, and using positive and negative controls. Describing her specific methods, May stated the following: “The first step is called extraction. And during that step, I separate the DNA from the item of evidence. The second step is called quantitation. And during that step, I figure out how much DNA I actually have from that evidence sample. The third step is amplification. And during that step, I make many copies of the specific areas of the DNA that I’m interested in ***. And then the fourth step of the process is where I will generate the DNA profile and then interpret the results and make any comparisons in the case.” ¶ 54 May further detailed her procedure after she generates a DNA profile, explaining as follows: “So, once I have the profile after I’ve interpreted it—interpretation would involve looking at it to see if it’s even suitable to be compared to known reference samples - 11 -  and then determining how many people might be contributing their DNA to that evidence sample. So, once I’ve established those factors, if it’s even suitable and how many people might be contributing to the item, then I’ll compare it to any known reference samples that I have from any individuals related to the case.” ¶ 55 May testified she received the cigarette butt recovered from the scene and a known buccal swab reference sample collected from defendant. She performed DNA testing on both items and developed DNA profiles. May explained that because more than one person contributed DNA to the cigarette butt, it contained a “mixture of different DNA signals or patterns together.” Specifically, she determined the cigarette butt contained a mixture of DNA from two male contributors. ¶ 56 May compared defendant’s known DNA profile to the evidence profile and concluded that defendant “was included as a potential contributor to the mixture of DNA profiles on the cigarette butt.” Explaining her specific terminology, May testified, “We don’t use phrases like ‘match’ or ‘does not match’ anymore. *** ‘[I]ncluded’ means that everything is consistent and nothing is inconsistent.” Because defendant was included as a contributor, May calculated the statistical frequency of the mixture to be no more common than 1 in 3.2 billion unrelated individuals. ¶ 57 May then testified that she searched the mixture of DNA profiles from the cigarette butt in the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a national database containing profiles from crime scenes, convicted offenders, and missing persons used to aid criminal investigations. She stated that the CODIS search returned an association to Ibarra. Although she did not receive a reference sample from Ibarra to confirm the association, May noted the association was “valid for *** investigative follow up by the agency.” - 12 - ¶ 58 On cross-examination, May acknowledged she cannot determine the specific time frame when DNA was deposited on an item, agreeing it is possible for a mixture to result from two individuals contacting the same item at completely separate times. She reiterated that chemicals, like the bleach she used to clean her workspace, as well as ultraviolet light, can destroy DNA and hinder profile detection. ¶ 59 After the State rested, defendant did not present any evidence. ¶ 60 Following closing arguments, the jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder. ¶ 61 C. Sentencing ¶ 62 In February 2025, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. At the onset of the hearing, the court noted it had received a presentence investigation report (PSI) and asked the parties if they had any changes to make. The State noted defendant had a pending murder case but stated it would not present evidence regarding that offense. The court stated it would not consider that case unless evidence concerning it was presented, but none was. ¶ 63 Attached to the PSI were victim impact statements, which the State read into the record. McCammond provided a statement detailing the severe physical and emotional trauma, indescribable fear, and helplessness she endured during the home invasion. Alexia Gonzalez, the victim’s daughter, provided a statement recounting the trauma of gathering at the hospital on the morning of the murder. She emphasized that because her family was forced to endure a lifelong punishment of living without her mother, defendant should similarly be punished for the rest of his life. ¶ 64 The PSI showed that defendant had a lengthy criminal history. His adult record included two Class 4 felony convictions in 2015 for domestic battery and aggravated fleeing to - 13 - elude, as well as multiple misdemeanor convictions, including a 2014 criminal trespass to a building, a 2013 criminal trespass to a residence, a 2012 theft, and a 2010 Class A domestic battery. Defendant’s juvenile record included a 2009 residential burglary, a 2009 possession of cannabis with intent to deliver, a 2006 retail theft, and two counts of criminal defacement of property in 2006. ¶ 65 In mitigation, defense counsel submitted written statements from defendant’s family members. Finally, defendant gave a statement in allocution, expressing sorrow for the victim’s family but maintaining he was innocent of the murder. ¶ 66 After a brief recess, the trial court issued its sentencing decision. The court stated it fully considered the trial evidence; the PSI; defendant’s history, character, and attitude; the arguments and statement in allocution; and all applicable statutory factors in aggravation and mitigation. The court noted that although the State argued no mitigating factors applied, one factor did apply—namely, “that he is a parent and he has children who would be negatively affected by that parent’s absence.” The court stated that it was “mindful of the fact that there are a number of children who are going to be growing up without their father present.” ¶ 67 The trial court then discussed defendant’s rehabilitative potential and the nature of the offense, stating as follows: “As far as factors—the other factors in mitigation, [defense counsel] didn’t point to ones in particular but talked about [defendant] having rehabilitative potential, which is, of course, what factors in mitigation relate to. Many of the factors in mitigation would relate to things, like if I’m considering probation, whether someone’s likely to comply with a term of probation, and that’s not an option here. So, specifically, as enumerated, there are - 14 - no factors—other factors in mitigation, but I’ll talk further about the potential in a little bit. For factors in aggravation, this is a circumstance where I can consider that the defendant’s conduct caused or threatened serious harm, not in terms of to Tammy Gonzalez—that, of course, is part of the murder case—but in terms of the actions that preceded the death of Ms. Gonzalez. Circumstances of bringing Mr. Garcia Fiebrantz to the home and, before that, the home invasion that was taking place where Mr. Ibarra and Ms. McCammond were victims. Ms. McCammond testified at trial concerning the really horrific nature of this, where you wake up and find masked people in your home beating you, beating your companion, and more. Stealing things from you and that not being enough and getting more people involved because of greed. Ms. McCammond testified that she was injured. Mr. Ibarra never testified in the case, but some evidence was received concerning that. This was a home invasion, and it certainly can be considered to have caused or threatened serious harm. The defendant does have a history of prior delinquency or criminal activity. That was laid out by the State in their argument concerning his juvenile history, as well as his adult history, prior involvement with the court system. And that is significant and the Court is considering that, as well as—and this applies in every case—that a sentence is necessary to deter others from committing the same crime. That’s certainly true. This is the second sentencing. It was the third—well, the second trial, but - 15 - I’ve had three trials relating to the facts of this case. It is the second sentencing that I’m participating in. None of it changes my thought of how senseless it is that somebody wanting what somebody else has and they get together with their friends or associates and break into someone’s house to take it by force from somebody else and, when that’s not enough, calling to compound the circumstances by getting an alleged drug dealer to come over and steal from him, rob him. And, of course, we know from the trial where things went south. I do recognize, as [defense counsel] noted, nobody indicates that you were the person that killed Ms. Gonzalez. Nobody. I know that [defense counsel] took issue with it being who Mr. Hawkins said it was, but nobody said that it was you. And that, of course, is a plus. But you’re involved in an unbelievably serious crime with the worst consequence ever: somebody getting murdered as a result. And so, while you are not accused of being the person who pulled the trigger, you are just as responsible as the person who did, which is why we’re here. In terms of your rehabilitative potential, I am sure that your parents love you. *** But in terms of your potential, you’ve squandered it. You’ve had opportunities involved in the court system to go a different direction. It started when you were a juvenile; it continued when you were an adult—opportunities on probation. And while one of your probation terms indicates that, ultimately, it was - 16 -  considered successfully discharged, you faced a—and admitted to a petition to revoke your probation, so I’m—maybe that’s quibbling, but every probation term I believe that you had was—you faced a petition to revoke your probation. You were sentenced to the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice and the Illinois Department of Corrections because of noncompliance with the terms and conditions of your probation. *** One of the things that I did in preparation for the sentencing was looking back on your codefendant. As I indicated when we started, his sentence was 65 years in the Department of Corrections. He had a similar criminal history to yours. He had an additional felony conviction. His role in the offense is alleged to be different, but there really are no positives about this offense. There’s no spin that you can put on it to say it’s not so bad. It’s breaking into people’s homes, stealing their things, calling in for somebody else, and somebody gets killed. There’s nothing good about that.” ¶ 68 Ultimately, the trial court sentenced defendant to 57 years in prison. ¶ 69 This appeal followed. ¶ 70 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 71 Defendant appeals, arguing that (1) the trial testimony by the State’s DNA expert lacked a proper foundation for her conclusion that one of the two male DNA profiles found on a cigarette butt at the crime scene matched defendant’s DNA profile, (2) the State’s evidence was not sufficient to prove defendant guilty of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) defendant’s 57-year sentence was excessive. - 17 - ¶ 72 We disagree with all of defendant’s claims and affirm. ¶ 73 A. Defendant’s Claim That the Testimony Against Him by the State’s DNA Expert Lacked a Proper Foundation for Her Conclusion ¶ 74 In his brief, defendant makes the following argument: “The State’s DNA expert, Heather May, concluded that [defendant] could not be excluded as a contributor to the mixture of DNA profiles found on [the cigarette butt recovered from the crime scene]. However, May did not explain how she conducted the DNA testing, did not state what testing method she used, did not explain what steps she took, did not explain how she came to her conclusion that [defendant] could not be excluded, and did not provide any basis for her statistical calculations. Despite these glaring omissions in her testimony, May’s testimony and opinions were admitted at trial.” ¶ 75 Defendant concedes that his trial attorney did not object to May’s testimony but claims that the admission of her testimony constituted plain error. Alternatively, defendant claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to May’s testimony on the grounds of lack of foundation. ¶ 76 Because we conclude that May’s testimony was properly admitted, we reject all of defendant’s contentions. ¶ 77 Defendant relies primarily upon People v. Safford, 392 Ill. App. 3d 212 (2009), and People v. Murray, 2019 IL 123289, to support his argument. Accordingly, we discuss each of these cases in detail. ¶ 78 1. Safford Was Wrongly Decided and Will Not Be Followed ¶ 79 a. A Summary of Safford - 18 - ¶ 80 In Safford, the defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and attempted murder of a police officer. Safford, 392 Ill. App. 3d at 212. He argued on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed a fingerprint examiner to testify to his conclusion that a print found on the victim’s vehicle belonged to the defendant without providing an evidentiary foundation for his opinion. Id. at 212-13. The First District agreed with the defendant’s argument, reversed his conviction, and remanded for a new trial. Id. at 213. ¶ 81 At trial, the trial court found Brent Cutro, a forensic scientist and latent fingerprint examiner for the Illinois State Police’s Joliet, Illinois, laboratory with 24 years of experience, qualified to testify as an expert witness. Id. at 220. Cutro testified that he had determined that one latent print found on the lower left corner of the hood of the officer’s patrol car matched the inked print of the defendant. Id. ¶ 82 The appellate court summarized some of Cutro’s testimony, as follows: “Mr. Cutro testified his practice is to look at three levels of detail on each fingerprint during his analysis in order to come up with points of comparison. He testified he makes no notes when he finds points of comparison, nor does he record how or why he arrives at his conclusions. He notes only whether a latent print matches a known print. Mr. Cutro never testified to any number of points of comparison that he found between the latent print from the patrol car and the defendant’s print. Mr. Cutro acknowledged that during his fingerprint examination he used a magnifying glass.” Id. at 217. ¶ 83 On cross-examination, Cutro admitted that, during the fingerprint examination, he did not note the points of comparison he found. Id. at 220. The appellate court wrote the following about his testimony: - 19 -  “Examiner Cutro testified he would have observed the points of comparison in examining the Level Two detail. Examiner Cutro is among a group of experts that [sic] does not exclusively base his ultimate opinion as to identification on the points of comparison. He testified he made ‘matrix notes’ in reaching his opinion, but admitted his notes do not explain how he reached his opinion in this case. Examiner Cutro explained that he does not make notes as to his visual examination of the prints he is comparing; he merely notes whether there is or is not an identification.” Id. ¶ 84 The defendant argued that the trial court erred by allowing Cutro to testify regarding his conclusion that the latent print recovered from the officer’s patrol car belonged to the defendant without ever testifying, on either direct or cross-examination, about the evidentiary basis for his opinion. Id. The defendant further argued that to allow opinion testimony based solely on the qualifications of the witness as an expert, without disclosing the basis for the opinion, “ ‘would be to invite forensic fraud.’ ” Id. The appellate court noted that the defendant was attacking Cutro’s fingerprint identification testimony that the trial court allowed “as equivalent to allowing [E]xaminer Cutro ‘to testify in essence: I am an ex